The High Court of Madras has notified the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (Rules) vide official gazette dated April 5, 2023 pursuant to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 which abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Intellectual Property Committee constituted by the High Court of Madras formulated the Rules. The Intellectual Property Division of High Court of Madras is the second specialised forum for Intellectual Property disputes and appeals.

Source: https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2023-04/12eb073e-3f1a-4637-b31c-bfcaa6413d99/Madras_HC_IP_DivisionRules.pdf

The Office of CGPDTM issued two public notices dated March 27, 2023 in the Trade Mark Journal No. 2097 in furtherance of the notices issued on February 6, 2023 regarding the abandonment of certain applications. The latest notices contain lists of applications which have now been formally deemed as abandoned for failure of filing a Counter Statement (to the Opposition) or Reply to the Examination Report within prescribed statutory deadlines. The aggrieved Applicants, whose marks have been erroneously mentioned in the list, are invited to bring notice of the error to the Grievance Cell of Trade Marks Registry within a period of 45 days from the date of this notice.

Sources: https://search.ipindia.gov.in/IPOJournal/Journal/ViewJournal; https://search.ipindia.gov.in/IPOJournal/Journal/ViewJournal

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Bar Council of India v. Bonnie FOI Law College & Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 969 of 2023, vide judgement dated February 10, 2023, allowed for final year law students to appear in the All-India Bar Examination upon providing proof of their eligibility. The result, however, would be subjected to passing of all the college examinations by the student and other criteria to be set by the Bar Council of India.

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/all-india-bar-exam-aibe-supreme-court-bci-enrolment-fee-221260

ALG recently secured a win for one of the world’s leading home appliances brand against multiple unauthorized domain name registrations in an arbitration under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The WIPO-appointed Panel allowed the consolidation of multiple domains owned by different registrants under a single complaint on the ground of “common control”. The Panel held that “…The Respondents targeted the Complainant…apparent from how the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s mark and were set up to display websites selling products that infringe the Complainant’s intellectual property rights.”

Source: https://lnkd.in/dQEWJD6b

On July 11, 2022, the Delhi High Court directed issuance of a non-bailable arrest warrant against a defendant for “continuously and contumaciously violating the orders of the Court” in contempt petitions filed in trademark infringement and passing off suit Ramada International Inc. v. La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [CS (Comm) 470/2021]. Plaintiff Ramada International, Inc. is being represented by ALG India Law Offices LLP.

Earlier, on September 23, 2021, the Court had granted RAMADA an ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants’ use of LA RAMADA, which was later confirmed on March 15, 2022. Despite the interim injunction, the defendants continued to use LA RAMADA and its variants through new infringing websites and social media posts, resulting in contempt applications being filed against them. On May 11, 2022, the Court directed issuance of a bailable warrant against the Defendant, noting the brazen violation of the Court orders and his attempt to deny access to infringing materials to the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. Last week, the Court’s attention was drawn to yet another new website from the Defendants featuring the infringing marks, which the Court accessed and perused during the hearing. The Court directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the defendant, observing that “the conduct of the Defendants prima facie constitutes contempt of the orders passed by this Court.” The Court also directed seizure of the financial and accounting records of the Defendants.